Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

996

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 561 posts

Re: 996

#91

Post by Aurornis »

regentbowerbird wrote: post #51
Aurornis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies that try to demand extreme hours with average pay have very high turnover. As employees realize they’re getting a bad deal and that they can find a better ratio of pay to hours worked at other companies, they leave.

What happens when the companies band together to compress wages? Like what happened with the high-tech employee antitrust litigation. Individual employees are far more numerous (therefore harder to coordinate) and have way shallower pockets than companies, so the negotiation power is always going to be lopsided.

> What happens when the companies band together to compress wages? Like what happened with the high-tech employee antitrust litigation.

What happened with that litigation is it got shut down and those companies pay some of the highest compensation now.

One of the few jobs you can get that pays that much compensation with fewer educational requirements and better hours than alternatives in that compensation range (surgeon, specialist doctors, lawyers at demanding firms)

I don’t think that’s a great example for your point since by comparison FAANG employees have some of the best pay you can find in an attainable job for someone with a 4 year degree and the demands are lower than many of the similarly paid jobs that require a lot more education.

Re: 996

#92

Post by TrackerFF »

I've noticed the same here in Europe. Founders are really pushing the "Everyone should be doing 996 minimum", arguing that anything else is simply laziness, and that it is impossible to build a billion dollar company any other way.

But, of course, like many here have noted...there's billion dollar difference in incentives between a founder, and even the early members. For a "rank and file" engineer, you're sacrificing your life to make someone else filthy rich. And if lucky, you'll be left with a payday that's not too different from a regular industry job...

Re: 996

#93

Post by acuozzo »

jennyholzer wrote: post #71
jennyholzer wrote: post #48

why would i work 996 if i don't have ownership

996 means devoting your life to your work. If you work 996 without either: a. The opportunity to make millions of dollars b. Ownership of the means of production c. No other more dignified employment opportunities It sincerely appears to me that you are throwing your life away. If you're in this boat, I hope you have a long-term plan.

> It sincerely appears to me that you are throwing your life away.

... or need to provide for dependents and have few other options?

Re: 996

#94

Post by chvid »

I put in exactly 37 work hours pr. week. If I for some reason work more one day, I make sure to take time off the next day.

I have "experimented" with working more but I found it unconstructive. Chances of stress is much higher and with stress comes doing stupid things that I afterwards will regret.

I believe this holds for both working for myself and someone else.

Re: 996

#95

Post by drob518 »

Having worked at several startups, I’ll say that 996 is a lie. The best startups were ones that worked HARD for 8 to 10 hours, 5 days per week. What I always found at companies “working” 996 (or something close) was that mostly everyone was hanging out in the break room playing foosball or video games (or watching someone else do it). Sure, they were “in the office,” but the productivity of those hours beyond 8 was really low. Everyone would have been better off going home and coming back in fresh tomorrow after a good night’s sleep and having spent some time with friends and family. In fact a startup CEO friend of mine told me that he considered it a win to get 2 to 4 really productive hours per day. He found the rest of his time was typically wasted in meetings that could have been handled via email and in minutia that someone else should have dealt with. If somebody’s telegraphing crazy work hours in a job post, just walk away.

Re: 996

#96

Post by reaperducer »

jennyholzer wrote: post #55
Kapura wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

cruelty is fetishized in American (and particularly in corporate/executive) culture to quote my namesake: "abuse of power comes as no surprise"

cruelty is fetishized in American (and particularly in corporate/executive) culture

Cruelty in business existed for hundreds of years before there even was an America.

Re: 996

#97

Post by Aurornis »

stavros wrote: post #41
Aurornis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies that try to demand extreme hours with average pay have very high turnover. As employees realize they’re getting a bad deal and that they can find a better ratio of pay to hours worked at other companies, they leave.

Sure, but why does this rhetoric both persist, and only go one way? You never hear anything about an expectation from employers to pay more than what was agreed. If I'm an employee with miniscule equity, why would I put in any more time and effort than what was agreed?

Are you actually agreeing to specific hours? For example, in a contract, as an hourly worker, or with some formal arrangement with the company?

If so, then yes you should only work those hours.

However, if you’re a typical full-time employee in most countries you don’t have agreed upon hours.

> If I'm an employee with miniscule equity, why would I put in any more time and effort than what was agreed?

Again, if something was agreed upon you should follow that. In most full-time jobs they’re not going to specify a maximum number of working hours. It’s your job to explain what can be done in a workweek and push back when something can’t be done. If it persists and you don’t like it then you find another job. Vote with your feet.

Re: 996

#98

Post by gyomu »

manoDev wrote: post #21
didip wrote: post #3

996 as an employee, especially for companies that don’t offer fast growing stocks, is a super bad deal. 996 for a business owner or top exec at a big company? It’s the norm. And the risk-reward makes sense to them.

> 996 for a business owner or top exec at a big company? It’s the norm. And the risk-reward makes sense to them. It's bad anyway. These people burnout and start making dumb moves to bail out sooner.

Heh, at that level the job is just meetings and emails. You can do 996 of meetings and emails for a few millions a year without burning out.

Actual craft tasks like writing code tho? Definitely a recipe for burnout and shittier output, yep.

Re: 996

#99

Post by randomname4325 »

True story. I grinded hard at a startup for years. This was a decade ago so the concept of 996 wasn't part of the lore yet. But it was fun. We stayed late and I made life long friends. I worked closely with the founder (really awesome dude) as I was an early-ish employee. The company ended up not working, our equity went to zero and we got what you get when you don't get rich, experience. I ran into the founder randomly on the street years later. He didn't even remember my name. He recognized me and was excited to see me, but he had no idea what my name was. So yah, prioritize your life.
Post reply on HN